See also: IRC log
<sandro> amendment to minutes: change 'sandro' to ... someone ... in the PRR liason section.
<Allen> Minutes amendment: Please change the line in section 2 that says "liaison report from OMG SBVR - Allen Ginsberg: " to Donald Chapin
minutes from last meeting accepted
<sandro> ACTION: csma to ask ISO whether liaison is worthwhile for ISO IEC Joint Task Force 1, SC 32, Working Group 2: Metadata Standards US national body is ANSI L8 might be interesting for liaison. See [WWW] http://metadata-standards.org/ [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-rif-minutes.html#action01]
Selman says that there is no activity currently in JSR94
There are two mailing lists we can subscribe to
<csma> said could be the liaison?
said says that he follows the mailing list on JSR94
<scribe> ACTION: send a message to JSR94 that the RIF is here [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<sandro> ACTION: Christian to send an email to announce the one week deadline for reviewing edited general use cases [DROPPED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-rif-minutes.html#action03]
<sandro> discussing ACTION: Ian Horrocks to write scenario for RichKR including ?features?
IanH edited the Rich Knowledge Representation scenario
<sandro> ACTION: Ian Horrocks to write scenario for RichKR including ?features? [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-rif-minutes.html#action04]
IanH trieed to give a generic example of RKR
<sandro> ACTION: Chris Welty will come up with another example narrative for a RichKR use case [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-rif-minutes.html#action05]
<sandro> ACTION: Christian will propose another scenario for the publication use case [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-rif-minutes.html#action06]
<sandro> ACTION: Paul Vincent will do the detailed scenario for "Interoperability between rule engines" [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-rif-minutes.html#action07]
<sandro> ACTION: Frank will do the scenarios for information integration with Ed Barkmeyer assisting [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-rif-minutes.html#action08]
<sandro> ACTION: Leora will do the Decision Support detailed scenario [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-rif-minutes.html#action09]
<sandro> ACTION: Donald will submit an email about the use case for interchanging rules specified in different metamodels [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-rif-minutes.html#action10]
Donald has updated the WIKI with human oriented rules
Allen Many of the scenarios just showed up today
Allen latecomers not in first draft. There is more editing to do
cross platform, rule development deployment to be done by PVincent
group needs to decide about human oriented ruless
group should look at donald's recent post
email needs to be sent about reminding people to look at use cases for completeness
csma: message seemed to be redundant based on minutes
chrisW: Need an editors draft for F2F in february. Plan is to leave meeting with a pubished working draft
Editor's draft should be ready just before the F2F on 27 February
Allen: in reasonable shape wrt
use cases themselves
... no design goals and requirements at the moment
Start figuring out requirements now
Allen: Use cases need to be
organized by next week. Then start on requirements
... to have an introduction etc. by next week's call?
... looking for closure on use cases
David: needs redaction
Allen: easily readable scenarios, with an intro, reduce to a few pages
ChrisW: Are there any undone use case categories
Allen: 2.3 cross development and deployment not yet done. Human use case needs a group decision.
allen: otherwise in relatively good shape
chrisW: people needs to review the human oriented b rules
<sandro> ACTION: Leora, Stan, JeffP to review and report on human oriented rules section of UCR, sending e-mail by friday. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-rif-minutes.html#action12]
chrisW: will section 2 be ready by next week?
Allen: should be possible
chrisW: have readiness by next
week as a goal so that we can get reviewers
... three people to review HOR, + use cases ready next week. Start reviewing next con call
<sandro> ACTION: Christian will start an email discussion on "What part of the RIF vs. OWL/RDF Compatibility belongs to RIF and what part belong to OWL/RDF" [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-rif-minutes.html#action13]
<StanD> Jos DeRoo has reported on his action.
<sandro> ACTION: JosDeRoo to update RIF wrt SPARQL rdfSemantics issue and its pending resolution [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-rif-minutes.html#action14]
<sandro> ACTION: JosDeBruijn create a wiki page explaining the issue with bNode semantics and summarize the possible solutions which have come up during the discussions on the mailing list [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-rif-minutes.html#action15]
ChrisW: active topic: discussion on query languages
<StanD> JosDeRoo has reported on the SPARQL action at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jan/0138.html
chrisW: would like to see resolution on query language compatibility.
sandro: does not feel the need to achieve consensus on query language compatibility at the moment
<sandro> ACTION: JosDeRoo to update RIF wrt SPARQL rdfSemantics issue and its pending resolution [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-rif-minutes.html#action16]
stanD: Jos could not make the call. However, JosDeRoo feels that he has completed his action wrt SPARQL
mKifer: revolves on semantics of b-nodes ... including SPARQL
Query language discussion waiting on b-node discussion
csma: not sure if we should wait for bnode before talking sparql
relation between rif and query languages e.g. querying knowldge and databases
this is compat with RDF
chrisW: need a new item on agenda for QL fitting into RIF
<saidtabet> Agree with Sandro
<Sandro:> should be done in the context of use cases and not in abstract
<josb> +1 agree with Sandro
csma: also agrees
<sandro> sandro said -- let's only talk about this (query language -- acces to data issue) in the context of specific use cases
<josb> Why not add a use case?
sandro: looking for proposals
relating QL and use cases
... should already be in use cases
csma: when people discuss QL, specific topic on email, illustrate with examples
<PaulaP> there is a use case on querying XML and RDF data
Allen: information integration does not mention SPARQL but should be big on QL
<PaulaP> the mentioned use case is in the information integration category
chrisw: not much done on
... need to understnad what is being exchanged
... what can be interchanged
... breakout sessions focused on classification in order to be able to understand what we can interchange
... varying expectations on amount that we will be able to interchange
... please add to suggested reading list. How to classify KR semantics
<EvanWallace> When did Chris send this message?
allen: agrees with chrisw. Key is
what can we facilitate.
... suggestion from email list: concrete way - specific example and how would you translate
... specific example from Jess, should be possible to tranlate to jrules but harder taks to translate to prolog (say)
... discussion on how to represent semantics of rules
... also translation across different meta-models/semantics
<sandro> +1 Allen (to look at some specific examples of translating between rule languages with very different semantics)
allen: there is no retract in Prolog
retract is called retract in Prolog!
<sandro> real prolog does have retract, but pure prolog does not -- maybe that's the confusion.
chrisw: need to avoid reinvention
... looking for utility not perfection
<sandro> ChrisWelty: even if we can't translate completely, it's still useful to translate
said: agrees with Allen & chrisW need to focus on what we are trying to interchange
harold: separate phase 1 from
phase 2 issues. retract is a phase 2 issue
... could have phase 1 use cases. only pure KR in phase 1
<EvanWallace> +1 on phase II continuity for Use Cases
<sandro> harold: use cases should be marked up with what is phase 1, what is phase 2.
chrisw: what is slotted logic?
harold: slotted logic = named arguments
allen: we need to be clear on
what RIF guarantees in terms of interchange
... do we guarantee logical, operational equivalence
stanD: wrt object of interchange
key step is infrastructure allowing author to document what is
... if you can clearly identify what the source of KR is, receiver can more easily determine how to interpret. Particularly wrt vocabularies in use.
chrisW: need to move forward on this
<scribe> ACTION: Harold will explain what Lloyd Topor extensions etc mean [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-rif-minutes.html#action18]
<sandro> ACTION: [DONE] chris clarify desiderata for list of classifications [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-rif-minutes.html#action19]